Skip to main content

Quantum Physics and Mathematical Debates Concerning the Problem of the Ontological Priority between Continuous Quantity and Discrete Quantity

  • Conference paper
The Role of Mathematics in Physical Sciences
  • 959 Accesses

Abstract

In his book about the Categories (that is about the ultimate elements of classification and order), in the chapter concerning the quantity (IV, 20) Aristotle says that this concept recovers two kinds of modalities: the discrete quantity and the continuous quantity and he gives as examples the number for the first one; line, surface, solid, times and space for the second one. The main philosophical problem raised by this text is to determine which of the two modalities of the quantity has the ontological priority over the other (given two concepts A and B, we assume that A has ontological priority over B if every entity that possesses the quality B possesses necessarily the quality A). The problem is magnified by the fact that space, which in some part of Aristotle’s Physics is mentioned not only as a category properly speaking but even as the main category whose power can be amazing, is in the evoked text of the Categories’s Book reduced to expression of the continuum, and sharing this condition with time. In this matter the controversy is constant through the common history of Science and Philosophy.

In this paper we will recall the main points of projection of the controversy through the history of thought, from Zeno’s aporias (and the mathematical attempts of solution) to the contemporary non standard analysis. To summarize: in order to display the ontological weight of quantum physics we will replace in its philosophical background the dramatic moment when Einstein suggested that Max Planck’s theory was faraway of being merely an speculative mathematical construction, and that energy in nature actually comes in indivisible packets, instead of infinitely divisible streams. We will ask ourselves what different answers to the question have been brought forward by the ulterior developments of the discipline. In a second part of the paper we will try to establish the link between the problem raised up, the controversies about quantum non locality and the contemporary philosophical objections concerning the lack of rational explanation in the quantum theory, in spite of being largely successful at predicting the results of atomic processes. For, as the Newton’s hypothesis non fingo displays, description and prevision does not necessarily means explanation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aristotle, 1928, Categories’s Book, translated into English by E. M. Edghill, W. D. Ross, ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. S., 1964, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1: 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Born, M., and Einstein, A., 1971, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker, New York, p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantor, G., 1883/1932, Grundlagen allgenmeinen Manigfaltigkeitslehre, in: Gesammelte Abhandlugen, Springer Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N., 1979, Philosophy in physics, in: Current Research in Philosophy of Science, P. D. Asquitt and H. E. Kyburg Jr., ed., Philosophical Association, East Landing, Michigan, pp. 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giusti, E., 1986, Immagini del continuo nell’opera di Leibniz, Colloquio Leibniz-Gesselschaft, Roma, inedited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., 1935, Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Physical Review 47: 777–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thom, R., 1970, Les mathématiques modernes, une erreur pédagogique et philosophique, in: L’Age de la Science, Villet Vol. III, Paris Dunod, pp. 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thom, R., 1990a, L’anteriorité ontologique du continu sur le discret, in: L’infini, H. Sinacoeur, ed., Colloque de Cerisy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thom, R., 1990b, Un continu ne peut être discret que s’il apparaît comme un accident d’un autre continu de dimension supérieur (une droite dans le plan par exemple), in: L’infini, H. Sinacoeur, ed., Colloque de Cerisy.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. J., 1992, The Continuous and the Discrete. Ancient Physical Theories from a Contemporary Perspective, Clarendon Press, Oxford, p. 185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, M. B., 1992, Philosophy and frontier science, in: New Horizons to the Philosophy of Science, D. Lamb, ed., Avebury Series in Philosophy of Science, pp. 26–49.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this paper

Cite this paper

Pin, V.G. (2005). Quantum Physics and Mathematical Debates Concerning the Problem of the Ontological Priority between Continuous Quantity and Discrete Quantity. In: Boniolo, G., Budinich, P., Trobok, M. (eds) The Role of Mathematics in Physical Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3107-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics